In this episode of the California Underground Podcast, hosts Phil and Camille dive into the latest political developments in California. They discuss Katie Porter's recent crash out on CBS and her attitude towards Trump voters. The episode also covers the implications of Senate Bill 79, which mandates high-density housing near transit hubs, sparking debates over local control and housing affordability. Additionally, the hosts explore the potential impact of a new law allowing Uber and Lyft drivers to unionize (and likely increase prices), speculating on the future of ride-sharing in the state amidst emerging self-driving technologies.
Are you a Californian who feels isolated and alone in your political views in a deep blue state? Feel like you can’t talk about insane taxes, an overbearing government, and radical social experiments without getting a side eye? Then join us on the California Underground Podcast, the most trusted podcast on all things California politics.
Original air date 10.14.25
*The California Underground Podcast is dedicated to discussing California politics from a place of sanity and rationality.*
Check out our full site for more information about the show at www.californiaunderground.live
Check out our sponsor for this episode, StopBox, by going to www.stopbox.com/californiaunderground to get 10% off your order
Follow California Underground on Social Media
Instagram: www.instagram.com/californiaunderground
X: https://twitter.com/CAUndergound
Tik Tok: https://www.tiktok.com/@californiaunderground?_t=8o6HWHcJ1CM&_r=1
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCj8SabIcF4AKqEVFsLmo1jA
Read about our Privacy Policy: https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/privacy-policy/
00:00:00
Katie Porter crashes out on CBS is her gubernatorial campaign
00:00:04
over Newsom just signed a bill that will likely end up killing
00:00:07
Uber and Lyft. And also high density housing
00:00:10
coming to a neighborhood near you whether you like it or not.
00:00:13
We're going to get into that and more on this episode of the
00:00:16
California Underground podcast starting right now.
00:00:35
What's going on everybody? Thanks for tuning in to another
00:00:37
episode of the California Underground Podcast.
00:00:39
I am your host Phil, the most trusted podcast for all things
00:00:42
California politics. We got a ton of stuff to get to
00:00:44
tonight, including probably the death of Union and Lyft thanks
00:00:47
to Gavin Newsom, Katie Porter's crash out and high density
00:00:51
housing being forced on you. Whether you like it or not.
00:00:55
And if you haven't already, before we begin, make sure you
00:00:57
like share subscribe review helps us in the algorithm.
00:01:00
And if you're in the chat tonight, make sure you let us
00:01:03
know where you're from, where you're hanging out with us from
00:01:06
Camille, as always, my trusty Co host, the best of fastest
00:01:10
researcher in the West. I tried to say that too fast.
00:01:13
How are you Camille? I'm.
00:01:15
Good. Thank you.
00:01:16
How are you? I'm good already the no on 50s
00:01:19
Yeah. I think we should have a a
00:01:21
podcast episode soon basically just detailing our no on 50
00:01:25
stances. But First off, let's just jump
00:01:29
right into it. The story that everybody has
00:01:32
been talking about. First off, hopefully everyone is
00:01:35
safe out there with all the rain, San Diego, we weathered
00:01:38
pretty well. The rest of you, I don't know,
00:01:40
but hopefully you're safe out there wherever you're tuning in.
00:01:43
The story that everyone has been talking about since last week is
00:01:47
Katie Porter's crash out on CBS. She refused to answer questions.
00:01:52
We're going to watch that video real quick and then we have some
00:01:55
new footage that we're going to premiere here tonight thanks to
00:01:59
the research skills of Camille. So we're going to watch that and
00:02:01
give our two cents. Let me first find it and here it
00:02:05
is. We've also asked the other
00:02:08
candidates, do you think you need any of those 40% of
00:02:11
California voters to win and you're saying no, you don't?
00:02:13
No, I'm saying I'm going to try to win every vote I can.
00:02:16
And what I'm saying to you is that.
00:02:19
Well, to those voters, OK, so, so.
00:02:21
You, I don't want to keep doing this.
00:02:22
I'm going to call it. Thank you.
00:02:26
You're not going to do the interview.
00:02:27
With us? Nope, not like this, I'm not.
00:02:29
Not with seven follow-ups to every single question you ask.
00:02:32
Every other candidate has. I don't care, I don't care.
00:02:35
I I want to have a pleasant positive conversation, which you
00:02:38
asked me about every issue on this list.
00:02:40
And if every question you're going to make up a follow up
00:02:42
question, then we're never going to get there and we're just
00:02:46
going to circle around. I am investigative.
00:02:48
Had to do this. Before ever you've never had to
00:02:52
have a conversation. To end an interview.
00:02:55
OK, but every other candidate has done this.
00:02:57
What part of I'm me, I'm running for governor because I'm a
00:03:00
leader, so I am going to make. So you're not going to answer
00:03:03
questions from reporters? OK, why don't we go through?
00:03:07
I will continue to ask follow up questions because that's my job
00:03:09
as a journalist. But I will go through and ask
00:03:11
these. And if you don't want to answer,
00:03:13
you don't want to answer. So nearly every legislative.
00:03:17
I don't want to have an unhappy experience with you and I don't
00:03:20
want this all on camera. I don't want to have an unhappy
00:03:23
experience with you, says Katie Porter.
00:03:25
Well, it's too late for that and she didn't want to have it on
00:03:28
camera, and it's too late for that as well.
00:03:30
It's been on camera. It's been all over the news and
00:03:32
everyone's been talking about it.
00:03:33
I did a video on it kind of breaking down.
00:03:36
This is Katie Porter. You and I have been following
00:03:39
Katie Porter for a while. You've been following Katie
00:03:41
Porter. This is not new for Katie
00:03:44
Porter. Like, she is genuinely A
00:03:47
abrasive, obnoxious woman and this has just been her career.
00:03:53
And I think she finally just it it, it spilled over in the worst
00:03:57
time possible right at the beginning of this gubernatorial
00:04:01
campaign. I did a whole video on it.
00:04:04
If people want to go get my thoughts.
00:04:05
But I want to hear your thoughts on it, Camille, 'cause I know
00:04:08
you have thoughts about Katie Porter.
00:04:10
And then we'll we'll show the video and the clip that you
00:04:13
found as well. I don't want to do the interview
00:04:19
like this. I don't want you to ask me
00:04:21
questions like this. I've never had to do this
00:04:24
before. You never had to.
00:04:26
Yeah. You never had to be on a podcast
00:04:28
and we asked questions before. Understandable.
00:04:30
Sure. Go ahead.
00:04:31
I. Can't even believe your question
00:04:33
right now. You follow questions I don't.
00:04:34
This is too much. There has been rumors for years
00:04:41
that she treats her staff poorly and has anger issues.
00:04:45
This is so she was in Congress in Orange County.
00:04:48
She's not my diverse by my district, you know, 20 minutes
00:04:55
away. So I again, the rumors don't
00:05:00
know if it's, you know, true except that we are starting to
00:05:03
cease these rumors. And you know, I kind of like in
00:05:14
2020 what I was maybe a little bit overboard crazy with the
00:05:18
gubernatorial candidates, but I was very big on if you can't
00:05:23
answer questions and you shut people down you and you're too
00:05:27
pressured, then you have no business being in office.
00:05:31
But especially the governor of California, the 5th largest
00:05:34
economy in the world. We are a very big state.
00:05:40
And I think being governor of any state is a lot of pressure.
00:05:44
It's a lot of work, there's a lot of stress.
00:05:47
And again, if you can't answer these basic questions and do
00:05:51
these basic interviews with follow up questions, then you
00:05:55
have no business being in an office that would stress you out
00:05:58
24/7. Because this just shows she
00:06:01
would break. I think because she has been
00:06:05
running for office so long. You know, she ran in 2018, she
00:06:09
won, she ran in 2020, she won. She ran 20/22, she won the Seoul
00:06:13
Congress. Then her term ended.
00:06:15
I forget if she either stepped down early or if her term ended
00:06:18
and she ran for U.S. Senate, which she did not
00:06:22
perform so well in. Obviously that was Schiff and
00:06:24
Garvey went to the general and she didn't make it to the
00:06:28
general shift one. She's been running for several
00:06:32
years. She is a single mom of three.
00:06:36
I do believe she needs to just step aside, do something a
00:06:41
little less stressful, focus on being a mom and kind of just get
00:06:45
her bearings. Like I I'm not saying she has a
00:06:47
mental illness. I don't know if she has anger
00:06:53
issues or if it's just all the stress of what she's done.
00:06:56
We're also we're also not not saying she has a mental illness
00:07:00
either. So just to be clear, I.
00:07:02
Don't want to like accuse her of anything, but just like looking
00:07:06
at this from a, a mom's standpoint, I'm sorry, but I am
00:07:10
a mom. Like, I just think, you know
00:07:11
what, go home and love on your children.
00:07:13
And, and, and I, I get that she's single and probably has to
00:07:16
work, but like she can probably go back to, I think she even did
00:07:19
go back to her, her law. She's a law professor at UCI.
00:07:24
You know, I just, I feel like just maybe, maybe take a break
00:07:28
from running for office. And I don't even say that
00:07:30
because I don't want her to be governor, but for her own sake
00:07:33
and for her children's sake, I just feel like, just take a
00:07:35
break. You can come back.
00:07:37
She's young enough. Wasn't there an issue of like
00:07:40
she was also because she worked at UCI, that she was getting her
00:07:43
housing paid for even when she wasn't working at UCI or
00:07:46
something like that? Like I remember there was
00:07:47
something like that. There's a community in Irvine
00:07:52
that the professors get to live in for a very low like they get
00:07:56
to purchase the homes for super suitable rate.
00:07:58
Irvine's very expensive. The home she lives in would
00:08:00
probably easily be a 7 figure home as they they like.
00:08:05
I think they even pay the property taxes because I looked
00:08:08
up the property tax address once and it goes to a school system
00:08:12
like like the California school system.
00:08:15
So she obviously stepped out of her role to go run to be in
00:08:22
Congress. And yet she got to continue
00:08:25
living in the the housing, which is usually a a no.
00:08:29
And and I think she old they went back to work this this
00:08:34
year, maybe the like the fall semester, possibly earlier this
00:08:39
year. And but yeah, all that time she
00:08:41
had, it wasn't free housing, but it's very, very affordable
00:08:44
housing. And OK, great for her, but she
00:08:48
does kind of run on this whole like I'm a person.
00:08:52
Groceries are expensive. I'm going to help you.
00:08:55
And it's like, you don't even know.
00:08:56
Sorry, you don't even know. Yeah, she plays that card of
00:08:59
like, well, I'm just like you. I'm, I'm just like all you
00:09:02
little people. I'm just like you.
00:09:04
And I struggle with groceries and paying the bills and stuff
00:09:07
like that. It's like, well, do you, do you
00:09:10
really? I mean, you were in Congress for
00:09:11
a while. You're kind of a national
00:09:12
figure, sort of a national figure.
00:09:14
Now, from what I understand, she hasn't really held like a, and
00:09:19
by a real job, I guess no offense to all your college
00:09:22
professors out there, but I mean like a, a job like out in the
00:09:26
private sector where she wasn't a lawyer.
00:09:29
I know she wasn't a lawyer. I think she was just a law
00:09:31
student. She was a law student of, was
00:09:35
she a law student of Elizabeth Warren?
00:09:37
She was a student of Elizabeth Warren, which is how she ended
00:09:40
up in consumer and bankruptcy law, which is also like what
00:09:44
Elizabeth Warren did and what she was known for before she
00:09:46
became a massive sellout to big Pharma.
00:09:49
So she's kind of like a protege of Elizabeth Warren, been a
00:09:53
professor, then she went to Congress and now she's lecturing
00:09:55
us on all this woke ideology. So she really hasn't had to be
00:10:00
out in the real world. And again, no offense to college
00:10:04
professors, but I feel like you haven't.
00:10:05
She hasn't been out in the real world.
00:10:07
And the last thing we need is, you know, a college professor
00:10:10
being the governor of California who doesn't know how business
00:10:13
works or anything like that. But she does teach.
00:10:16
And she did show up at UCI. And you found this video and I
00:10:21
found it hilarious as as did you.
00:10:23
So give us a little background of what this video is.
00:10:27
It's really a quick clip, but what is the background of this
00:10:30
video? Oh gosh, I believe that she was
00:10:34
brought into UCI. This is February of 2025 S just
00:10:36
eight months ago, I think she was maybe doing a guest lecture
00:10:41
about politics, running for office.
00:10:45
I do want to say real quick, I believe that she was barred in
00:10:48
the state of Oregon. I don't know if she practiced or
00:10:52
not, but I'm pretty sure I looked that up and I don't even
00:10:55
know if she kept it current or not.
00:10:57
But she moved here and then she has done a ton of guest
00:11:02
lectures. She's very, I mean, she went to
00:11:04
Yale, she went to Harvard. She's got a lot of education.
00:11:10
She's a guest lecturer at various prestigious colleges.
00:11:15
So she she can speak I guess she just can't interview.
00:11:21
She can't be asked questions. And, and just on an anecdotal
00:11:24
note, in my life, you know, as an attorney, the people I know
00:11:29
whenever we talk about like lawyers from Harvard, like they
00:11:33
are usually, they are usually talked about in a very negative
00:11:37
light, as if they're the worst lawyers because all they want to
00:11:40
talk about is how they're from Harvard Law and they're usually
00:11:43
not very good attorneys. But that's just my yes.
00:11:47
It's I heard something called the gentleman's C is that?
00:11:54
The Gentleman C. OK, so this is what I heard and
00:11:57
I was hoping you would have the answer for it.
00:11:59
And maybe that's the wrong term because I heard this so long
00:12:01
ago. Harvard doesn't want to have a
00:12:04
bad graduation rate. They don't want to look like
00:12:06
they have, you know, they want the best of the best.
00:12:10
And it was something where they if they were failing, they would
00:12:13
still be given AC so as to look like their grades, their
00:12:17
students are performing better. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, I've
00:12:20
heard that before. Yeah.
00:12:22
They they kind of pump up the grade so it doesn't look like
00:12:24
people are failing out as much. Yeah, I've heard that.
00:12:28
I don't know how true it is, but maybe she got the gentleman see
00:12:32
and got all the way through. I don't know.
00:12:34
She can't handle questions. So Harvard and Yale should be
00:12:37
very proud of the fact that she can't handle basic questions.
00:12:40
All right, let's take a look at this clip and then we'll comment
00:12:43
and then we'll move on to our next story It.
00:12:47
Leaves them somewhat bewildered when they can't connect with the
00:12:51
actual swing voters that decide elections or the actual voters
00:12:54
that stay home in any given election.
00:12:57
What do I mean by this? So I grew up in Iowa.
00:13:00
I've seen everything done and wanted to be president for 30
00:13:03
years, up close and personal as a kid and in the past in
00:13:07
elections going back even to 2018 when I first ran you, you
00:13:12
pretty much for a year, year and a half, bunker down, raised
00:13:15
money, tried to learn how not to say anything stupid to a
00:13:19
reporter, right. And then the six months out from
00:13:23
the election, you began to connect with voters, the voters
00:13:26
that you needed to win your race.
00:13:28
That was the traditional path. So when?
00:13:32
Like I said, it was it was a quick clip and if you didn't
00:13:35
pick up on it, her thing was, well, you bunker down and then
00:13:39
you try not to say something stupid to reporters like I just
00:13:43
did last week. So that's rule #1 of Katie
00:13:48
Porter's congressional campaign strategy.
00:13:51
You bunker down, don't say anything stupid to voters.
00:13:53
Also in that clip, she talks about connecting to like,
00:13:56
independent and swing voters. We didn't show it in this clip,
00:14:00
but her that wasn't that was probably the worst of that clip.
00:14:06
But she also had another bad moment where she came off really
00:14:09
condescending where the interviewer asked her, well, how
00:14:12
are you going to connect to Trump voters?
00:14:14
Because there were millions of Trump voters here in California
00:14:16
and California went more red in 2024.
00:14:19
And she really condescendingly and snotty like, well, why do I
00:14:22
need their vote? I don't need their vote.
00:14:24
Like, well, what? I don't need them to win.
00:14:26
And it was this really condescending way of like, I
00:14:29
don't need Trump voters. I don't need to talk to
00:14:32
Republicans. I don't care about
00:14:33
conservatives. Like, I'm going to govern this
00:14:35
state like they don't exist or that they're horrible.
00:14:39
So for her to say, like, well, I'm going to connect with these
00:14:41
independent and swing voters. How many swing voters do you
00:14:44
think in California probably ended up voting for Donald Trump
00:14:48
in 2024? She doesn't care about Trump
00:14:50
voters or people who may have gone red in 2024.
00:14:54
And that kind of started this whole crash out that she had on
00:14:57
CBS. So I thought that was
00:15:00
interesting as well that she want to connect with voters and
00:15:02
those independents in those swings.
00:15:04
But when it comes to running for governor, she doesn't want to
00:15:08
reach out to those swing voters or Trump voters.
00:15:11
So did you pick up on that as well?
00:15:13
I did yes. I mean she laughed into the
00:15:16
camera. I'm sure everyone has seen this
00:15:18
clip by now. If not, you can.
00:15:20
I mean, just search the name Katie Porter and this clip is
00:15:23
going to come up. But yeah, she basically the
00:15:27
interviewer asked for the question and she turned to the
00:15:30
camera and was like, Madam, why, why do I need the Trump voters
00:15:34
like, And she just like laughed and, and I, I just don't
00:15:40
understand this whole, I, I get that we, we all pretty much have
00:15:43
our political party, but I don't understand the, I'm a leader,
00:15:48
but I don't need to connect with other voters like you're, you're
00:15:52
sent them as well. You're not only representing
00:15:56
your party, you're representing an entire state of independent
00:15:59
libertarians, Democrats, Republicans, American
00:16:03
Greenpeace, every in between, you know, and so me too laugh at
00:16:09
that. It was very condescending.
00:16:13
California is such what do we have like 40 million people in
00:16:16
this state. And while, yes, Democrats are
00:16:20
the majority of the voters, we've got everybody.
00:16:23
We've got Republicans and independents and Libertarians
00:16:25
and the Green Party and the American independents and you
00:16:29
know everything and you're running to represent all of
00:16:33
these people. And while certainly the Democrat
00:16:37
Party is the biggest party here, there's still millions that
00:16:41
you're representing. And I, I just don't laugh at us.
00:16:44
You're, you want to represent us.
00:16:46
You need to be working for everybody, or at least most
00:16:50
every oh, the now wait a hole.
00:17:05
You'll be in office. Yeah.
00:17:08
You'll break under pressure and you won't care about us.
00:17:10
Yeah, you'll just, you'll abandoned the people who didn't
00:17:12
vote for you and you'll say something snotty.
00:17:15
But anyway, that's Katie Porter. That's our thoughts on that.
00:17:19
A lot of people are already giving their thoughts, but we
00:17:21
have to comment on it. So let's move on to our next
00:17:24
story, SB-79. If you haven't heard about
00:17:28
SB-79, it is a housing bill that is basically going to shove high
00:17:33
density housing into your neighborhood whether you like it
00:17:37
or not. That's that's what's gonna
00:17:39
happen here. Let's watch a video that will
00:17:45
kind of detail Yimby's versus Nimby's people, how they feel
00:17:48
about SB 79. It's a big win for Yimby's
00:17:52
across California. You know the yes in my backyard,
00:17:55
folks? One of the most controversial
00:17:57
bills of the year just got the signature of Governor Newsom.
00:18:00
Senate Bill 79 loosens and even overrides restrictions on
00:18:04
housing developments near public transit hubs and other land
00:18:08
owned by transit agencies. That includes buildings up to 9
00:18:11
stories tall right next to stations.
00:18:13
The bill applies to 8 of the state's most densely populated
00:18:17
counties. 4 of them are right here in the Bay Area in place.
00:18:20
This is loaded with transit hubs for Bart, Caltrain and VTA.
00:18:23
Advocates say this could put a major dent in the housing
00:18:26
crisis. But as long as the project meets
00:18:29
certain requirements, local officials and neighbors won't be
00:18:32
able to stop it. And that's what has the
00:18:34
opponents of this worried. Dolan spoke with both sides
00:18:37
today. This new law will transform
00:18:40
communities with large and busy transit hubs.
00:18:43
Supporters say it'll help bring down housing costs.
00:18:46
Opponents say it'll strip local control and threatens the
00:18:49
character of their neighborhoods.
00:18:51
It's. Got the kind of quaint charm of
00:18:53
an older city, a hometown vibe, and it's also got the kind of
00:18:58
edginess of the city on the outskirts.
00:19:00
Zander Paisano moved to San Francisco's Glen Park
00:19:03
neighborhood about 8 months ago, and in that time, he's falling
00:19:06
in love with it. What's?
00:19:07
Growing on me, especially this little area here, Glen Park,
00:19:10
it's it's got a special place in my heart now.
00:19:14
He worries the new law, Senate Bill 79, could change the
00:19:17
neighborhood, especially if high rise apartment buildings go up
00:19:20
around the Glen Park Bart station.
00:19:23
But he also supports the bill's intention making homes more
00:19:26
affordable. If you can lower the rent,
00:19:28
that's always a good thing, but with that there's pluses and
00:19:31
negatives as well. One of the main supporters,
00:19:33
California Yemby, spent eight years pushing for this bill
00:19:36
before the governor finally signed it into law.
00:19:39
It's a moment of validation, it's a moment of celebration,
00:19:42
and really it's a moment for the work to get started and actually
00:19:46
implementing these laws. The new law only applies to 8
00:19:49
California counties with the most transit hubs, San Diego,
00:19:53
Orange, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa
00:19:58
Clara and Alameda counties. Developers will be allowed to
00:20:01
build up to 9 stories high next to subway stops.
00:20:05
The closer the site, the taller the building, and the law
00:20:08
overwrites local zoning rules and neighborhood objections.
00:20:12
Angered. We're disappointed, we're
00:20:14
frustrated. Susan Kirsch, founder of
00:20:16
Catalyst for Local Control, is one of many who oppose SB-79.
00:20:21
Even Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass asked Governor Newsom to
00:20:24
veto the bill, arguing it erodes local control, limits community
00:20:28
input, and cut her low income neighborhoods.
00:20:31
The affordability part of it is a part of what is the big scam
00:20:35
that many of us think that these buildings are not.
00:20:38
They have no assurances, no promises.
00:20:41
Of meeting the needs for those people who are living on even
00:20:46
minimum wages. California Yumby disagrees,
00:20:49
saying it's simple economics increasing supply will
00:20:51
eventually lower prices. State Senator Scott Weiner, the
00:20:55
bill's author, says local housing policies in many cities
00:20:58
have created the affordability crisis.
00:21:01
And it's. There it is.
00:21:03
There's our favorite bill drafter, Scott Weiner.
00:21:07
He's been pushing this for a while now and he's he's very
00:21:12
happy with his big buildings near transit.
00:21:14
That's he's been pushing this for a while.
00:21:16
So whenever it comes from Scott Weiner, it's usually not a good
00:21:19
idea. Time for the state to step in.
00:21:22
For a long time we had essentially pure local control
00:21:26
on housing and so it was a race to the bottom.
00:21:29
The state has an obligation for human health and well-being to
00:21:33
step in when you have local control that's run amok and
00:21:36
really is actually hurting a lot of people.
00:21:37
Paisano says he understands both sides and feels caught in the
00:21:40
middle. He still believes the local
00:21:42
residents should have a voice, but he's also fed up with sky
00:21:45
high housing costs. Change is coming.
00:21:48
Bob Dylan said it the best right times.
00:21:50
They are changing. We have to be prepared for the
00:21:54
change. The new law takes effect next
00:21:55
summer on July 1st, 2026, but some opponents say they're
00:21:59
already considering a legal challenge.
00:22:03
Bay Area Council President and CEO Jim Wonderson praised the
00:22:06
new measure, saying in part quote amid rising rents and
00:22:09
already too high home prices, measures like these are critical
00:22:12
to making housing more affordable, increasing ridership
00:22:15
on transit and giving people the option of living closer to where
00:22:18
they work. All right, SP79, I'll just say
00:22:24
it. Bad bill, obviously Scott Weiner
00:22:29
is, you know, once he's involved, it's usually a bad
00:22:32
bill. The big thing I really kind of
00:22:36
want to hammer home here is the fact that the state and its
00:22:41
infinite wisdom has decided that you cities and you localities
00:22:46
aren't building enough housing. So what we're going to do is
00:22:51
from the top down, we're going to create a state law that
00:22:55
forces you to build high density housing.
00:22:58
This is the bill text right here, and I highlighted some
00:23:02
portions that I found alarming and concerning.
00:23:06
So Parter says integrate up zoning provisions into local
00:23:09
jurisdictions, housing elements to align with statewide housing
00:23:12
goals. Meaning whatever the state
00:23:14
wants, we're going to integrate it into your provisions and
00:23:19
promote compliance. Now promote compliance.
00:23:22
To me, sounds like we're going to force compliance.
00:23:26
Promote is a very nice way to say, oh, we're going to promote
00:23:28
compliance with this law. When in reality it's Nope, we're
00:23:32
going to force this down your throats whether you like it or
00:23:35
not. With the regional housing need
00:23:37
allocation process goes on to say California faces a housing
00:23:41
shortage with both acute and chronic, particularly in areas
00:23:44
with access to robust public transit infrastructure.
00:23:48
Building more homes near transit access reduces housing and
00:23:51
transportation costs for California families and promotes
00:23:53
promotes environmental sustainability.
00:23:56
Of course, that always has to get thrown in there as well.
00:23:59
Economic growth and reduced traffic congestion.
00:24:04
Finally, consult with local governments, regional planning
00:24:09
agencies, transit operators, housing advocates, environmental
00:24:13
groups and other stakeholders to develop effective and equitable
00:24:17
equitable. That always sounds good as well.
00:24:19
Up zoning criteria sounds great. Consult with local governments,
00:24:24
but the next subsection goes into require local jurisdictions
00:24:28
to adopt and implement these transit based up zoning policies
00:24:32
in a timely manner. Timely and effective manner.
00:24:38
To me reading that Bill, it sounds very much like we're
00:24:44
going to shove as much high density apartments down your
00:24:48
throat whether you like it or not.
00:24:51
So in certain communities that may be residential, maybe
00:24:54
they've had homes there that are close.
00:24:57
Maybe the train was built through those neighborhoods, you
00:25:01
know, whether it be Orange County or San Diego.
00:25:03
And they're going to say, well, no, we're going to force you now
00:25:06
you got to start building apartment buildings next to
00:25:08
those cute little Craftsman houses that have been here since
00:25:10
the 40s. And you can't say or you can't
00:25:14
say nay about it because they've basically demonized local
00:25:18
control. Your City Council shouldn't have
00:25:20
a say. And we've talked about this on
00:25:22
the show before, how Sacramento hates local control.
00:25:26
If we go back to the whole school board issue with Sonia
00:25:29
Shaw and all that, they don't like school boards governing.
00:25:32
So they had to come in and and stamp that down.
00:25:34
They didn't like the whole, what was it the parental mandatory
00:25:38
parental notification act that that Sonia Shawn them did.
00:25:42
So they have to come in and stamp that down.
00:25:44
So here they want to get housing, more housing built
00:25:49
apartments. That doesn't mean they're
00:25:50
necessarily affordable housing. Apartments are not affordable
00:25:53
here in San Diego. I don't know how they are in
00:25:55
Orange County or LA. Anyone in the chat want to let
00:25:59
me know how affordable apartments are in high density
00:26:01
areas? So basically the state said
00:26:05
screw your cities, we're going to destroy them and throw up a
00:26:08
bunch of apartment buildings next to transit.
00:26:10
Whether you like it or not. That's my rent.
00:26:13
What are your thoughts on SB-79? OK, so of course, with you, the
00:26:20
first thing that stood out to me was removal of local control.
00:26:24
And you and I are huge on that. Like you said, we talk about it
00:26:27
all the time. We're very, you know, local
00:26:30
control's a big thing. Define public transit.
00:26:35
OK, I'm kidding because I know what public transit is, but I
00:26:38
would is this just train stations or does this apply to
00:26:43
like major bus stops that are quite used?
00:26:48
Like I don't, is it just train stations?
00:26:50
So that's what I'm kind of confused about.
00:26:53
And here's where I see this going.
00:26:56
If this doesn't get shot down, they're going to have to use
00:27:04
eminent domain. There's old homes to build
00:27:10
there. Like, well, Nope, we have the
00:27:12
legal right to build this. So these apartment complexes,
00:27:22
yeah, I don't see how this is going to be affordable.
00:27:28
I I get that. OK.
00:27:30
Over time, you know, there's more supply there for less
00:27:34
demand there for the cost comes down.
00:27:36
I I understand basic economics, but you have to build these
00:27:42
buildings. They've got all sorts of new
00:27:44
codes that these buildings are going to have to be built, you
00:27:47
know, the standards to which of course, those are government
00:27:50
passed things. And then they always go, oh,
00:27:53
we're removing the red tape so that we can make it building
00:27:55
faster. But then building supplies are
00:27:58
grossly expensive right now. So yes, over time.
00:28:02
But how many years over time is this supposed to lower the cost?
00:28:09
So let's say it takes 1520 years.
00:28:11
At that point, the building is outdated and needs upgrades.
00:28:14
And then it's like starting all over.
00:28:15
And I don't see this ever being actually affordable.
00:28:18
It's like, oh, it's going to be expensive now.
00:28:20
But in the long run, well, in the long run, you're going to
00:28:22
have to upgrade everything and new codes will be passed.
00:28:24
So when you upgrade everything, you're going to have to do it to
00:28:27
all these new codes and it's just going to be expensive
00:28:31
again. Because that's how I feel about
00:28:34
it. Also, they never, ever, ever
00:28:37
think more than, OK, here's the housing and yeah, we get to get
00:28:41
housing for, you know, 800 people in this building.
00:28:45
Okay, cool. But those 800 people, half of
00:28:49
them are kids and that school is overloaded.
00:28:53
The bus to get to the school, they're going to need more.
00:28:57
So they're going to need more teachers hope they need more
00:28:59
classrooms, the, the streets, the freeways, this added like
00:29:05
there's not the infrastructure to support all this.
00:29:07
So now there's all this traffic. OK, so more cars on the road,
00:29:12
more buses on the road or more smog.
00:29:14
And so now we need to pass more climate change regulations
00:29:18
because we got to, you know, throw money at the climate.
00:29:20
Like, does no one think, am I, am I stupid?
00:29:25
Like, are these stupid questions that I'm raising or do they just
00:29:27
really, or are they stupid? Who's stupid here?
00:29:30
I always also think like this whole affordable housing issue
00:29:37
misses the mark of what I think people are upset about it.
00:29:43
It's expensive to live in California and buy a house.
00:29:48
And I, I mean, the American dream is to buy and own a home.
00:29:53
That's always been the American dream.
00:29:55
Now, maybe that's changed over time.
00:29:56
Maybe that's not what people want, but when I think of like
00:29:59
affordable housing, maybe my perception of it is different.
00:30:05
Is this idea of we want people to be able to buy homes because
00:30:10
people buying homes is good for the economy.
00:30:12
It's good for neighborhoods, it's good for raising kids.
00:30:14
Kids are good for the economy, families are good for the
00:30:16
economy. Like that's what this is about.
00:30:19
Building a bunch of studio one and two-bedroom apartments close
00:30:24
to public transit, to me doesn't scream what we're talking about
00:30:29
or what Californians are talking about when they say we want
00:30:32
affordable housing. Not I want a like, like someone
00:30:36
in the chat said that a one bedroom is $2400 in Huntington
00:30:39
Beach. Seems like a lot of money.
00:30:41
I mean, $2400 is a lot of money for a one bedroom in Huntington
00:30:44
Beach, especially if you're, you're on your own working and
00:30:48
you're trying to, you know, you better have a pretty good job to
00:30:50
afford $2400. So I guess to me, maybe my
00:30:55
perception when they say affordable housing and, and I
00:30:57
guess to them, they're fine with affordable housing being, you
00:31:00
know, the peasants all jammed together in these like row
00:31:04
housing and like all these apartments crammed on top of
00:31:08
each other while they all live in like penthouses.
00:31:11
And you know, they have places in like Marin County and
00:31:13
they're, they don't really care about that.
00:31:15
So I don't know, maybe maybe I'm being too optimistic and
00:31:18
thinking like to me, affordable housing is a home.
00:31:22
It's a house, It's a home that you buy, that you afford, that
00:31:24
you grow. It's equity.
00:31:26
It's it's helps with the economy.
00:31:29
It's something you pass down, it's property.
00:31:31
It's the American dream to them, I guess.
00:31:34
Screw that. Your American dream or your
00:31:36
California dream is, don't you want a one bedroom right over a
00:31:40
public transit area where you know, homeless people sleep and
00:31:43
all sorts of crime happens at public transit stations and hope
00:31:46
you know, isn't that your California dream?
00:31:49
You want to own that apartment and pay $2500 a month?
00:31:53
That's the California dream. The California dream is to live
00:31:55
all jam packed together like sardines.
00:31:58
So I don't know, am I like completely off base and thinking
00:32:04
we're not, we're not seeing eye to eye for with Sacramento, what
00:32:07
affordable housing is. What are your thoughts?
00:32:11
Yeah, that's that's surely the opposite of how I live.
00:32:18
I have 4 kids and a husband. We would not do in a even two or
00:32:24
three bedroom apartment because then I would have a teenage son
00:32:29
and a teenage daughter sharing a room and that's not ideal
00:32:32
either. But can I say something that I
00:32:35
don't necessarily believe this, but if I were a conspiracy
00:32:39
theorist? OK, let's put our tinfoil hats
00:32:44
on them, OK? I'm not.
00:32:46
I'm not saying this is what they're doing.
00:32:50
I'm really not. I just kind of like to think
00:32:53
extreme doesn't mean it's my belief.
00:32:58
We've heard about like those smart cities.
00:33:01
We hear about how I don't, they just they don't want us to have
00:33:05
kids, which is weird. But and then we hear about how
00:33:11
possibly, you know, with another pandemic, they were like, want
00:33:15
to walk us down and control us cramming a bunch of people into
00:33:20
a building that then they could walk off in a way, it's kind of
00:33:25
a way to like have that control. And again, I really want to be
00:33:29
clear that I'm not saying that this is what they're doing and I
00:33:33
believe this. I'm just throwing this idea out
00:33:35
there because it does seem like if you stick people in these
00:33:40
situations and and we're not saying that all of our going to
00:33:43
be 1 better apartments. But like, let's say it is 2
00:33:46
bedrooms and you're paying 2500 a month and splitting it with a
00:33:49
roommate or whatever, but you're then stuck in this cycle.
00:33:53
You can't save for a house, therefore getting married,
00:33:59
having kids isn't ideal because you're like, well, we don't have
00:34:02
a yard, I don't have space. I can't have kids and have my
00:34:05
roommate and, you know, pack two or three kids into my room with
00:34:10
me and then have to go down 9 stories just to walk them to the
00:34:14
local school bus where the school bus is going to be full
00:34:16
anyway because no one thought of this beforehand.
00:34:19
And now I have to send my kids to a private school because the
00:34:22
public school's too full. But I can't afford the private
00:34:24
school and I can't have the kids.
00:34:26
And so I'm just going to sit and live in this.
00:34:30
I don't know. It's just become government
00:34:31
housing at that point. I don't even know how this
00:34:33
works. Well, I, I, while we're on the,
00:34:37
let's just go even farther. You know, we're not, we're not a
00:34:41
conspiracy podcast, but I mean, these things exist out in the
00:34:44
world. And I believe I saw at one
00:34:47
point, I think it was, gosh, now I can't remember that big.
00:34:53
Who's the the big creepy World organization people in the chat.
00:34:57
Let me know now I can't remember.
00:34:59
Klaus Schwab is the head of it. He was the head of it and they
00:35:04
put out, no, that's the World Health Organization.
00:35:09
Oh gosh, someone's going to say it in the chat.
00:35:11
Someone in the chat like Klaus Schwab was the head of it
00:35:14
anyway. But they're basically like a
00:35:17
globalist society that believes in like 15 minute cities.
00:35:21
And they've been pushing these 15 minute cities for a long
00:35:23
time. So this isn't like outrageous
00:35:25
that to think what you're saying, that they've wanted
00:35:29
people living in cities. Thank you.
00:35:33
World Economic Forum. Someone told me in the chat,
00:35:35
that's why we love doing this live is because people can help
00:35:38
us out. Yeah.
00:35:40
So the World Economic Forum is basically is, is basically,
00:35:44
thank you, Paulie Shortcuts is in favor of 50 minute cities.
00:35:48
And I totally get it because if everybody lives in a city, it's
00:35:51
much easier to control the population because they're all
00:35:54
jam packed together. You know, if, if we want to turn
00:35:57
off your power and your Wi-Fi so you can't communicate, it's much
00:36:01
easier to do that in the city and much easier to do that to a
00:36:04
mass amount of people in the city than it is when someone
00:36:07
buys a home. And also there is this sort of,
00:36:11
you know, philosophical thought behind if you rent as opposed to
00:36:16
buy, people have more incentive when they own property.
00:36:20
It's that individualism, it's liberty, it's freedom.
00:36:23
I own this property. I'm going to protect this
00:36:25
property. If you rent, it just becomes
00:36:28
this whole idea of like, it's more control.
00:36:31
And I've always said that I think California is on its way
00:36:35
to just creating a modern, you know, feudalism, which I think
00:36:38
we're at that point already in California.
00:36:40
We've created a modern feudalism.
00:36:42
There are the haves and the really have nots.
00:36:45
Basically. There's the wealthy and the
00:36:47
people who can't afford to live here.
00:36:49
And those are the people that they have a better time
00:36:52
controlling and kind of duping into voting for more statism.
00:36:59
But on that topic of local control, I had to look.
00:37:01
I have some notes about this basically really quickly just to
00:37:07
give you an idea. Projects, yes or no?
00:37:11
Height and density? Does the locality have a say?
00:37:15
No, they cannot restrict below what SB-79 says, so they can't
00:37:20
make it smaller. So they have to go with what
00:37:22
SB-79 says automatically so they can't dispute that site
00:37:28
approval. The locality has partial say,
00:37:33
but basically it's up to the state they get to figure that
00:37:35
out where it's built. Any sort of blockage local say
00:37:40
Nope. Proactive planning helps but the
00:37:42
state enforces and the state gets to override non compliance.
00:37:47
So to me that sounds like the locality has quite literally no
00:37:52
control. You can control if you comply
00:37:55
with SB-79 or want to go above that.
00:37:58
So like if you want to build those nine or nine story or more
00:38:01
apartment buildings, great, the state loves it.
00:38:04
Build a 1015 story apartment building, they love that.
00:38:07
Locality gets to say that. But anything less than that, if
00:38:11
they don't want it, sorry, state gets to override.
00:38:15
That does not sound like any sort of local control on my part
00:38:20
or or in my mind. What do you think?
00:38:31
Oh no are. You still here?
00:38:35
Yeah, I think it must be the weather.
00:38:39
I think it's the weather too. We'll just bring all this on the
00:38:41
weather. It's all the weather's fault.
00:38:43
You know, we, we, we talk a lot about the state wants control.
00:38:47
We talk a lot about we haven't got really gone super into the
00:38:51
15 minute cities, but these 615 minute city doesn't happen
00:38:55
overnight. I'm truly not a conspiracy
00:38:57
theorist. I really don't.
00:38:58
I I like facts, I like truth. But a 50 minute city, they're
00:39:02
not just going to be like, hey, we're taking you, you know, this
00:39:07
farmland and building a 50 minute city.
00:39:09
They pass bills like this slowly but surely they chip away at it
00:39:14
so that it's you're kind of like, oh, OK, maybe this isn't
00:39:17
that big of a deal. It's just a few counties are
00:39:19
affected, you know, but then it's like they passed that and
00:39:23
then they passed the next one and the next one and then all of
00:39:25
a sudden you're like, wait, when did we allow this to happen?
00:39:30
It just we elected people who want weird control and who don't
00:39:37
like land or apparently and think that which California,
00:39:41
That's another thing. California is so beautiful.
00:39:43
It is so beautiful here. And like eventually they're
00:39:46
going to be like, well, we need more housing.
00:39:48
So, you know, somebody's going to have to go.
00:39:49
We're building a house here. You know, it's just.
00:39:54
It's sad and there's plenty of places to build actual houses in
00:40:01
in California, but. Moral of the story, SB 79 is a
00:40:05
horrible bill that is going to force a lot of high density
00:40:08
apartment buildings in public transit areas in your city if
00:40:11
you live in any of these counties, Orange, Los Angeles,
00:40:14
San Diego, or any of the Bay Area.
00:40:15
So if you live in any of those counties, get ready to see a
00:40:18
bunch of apartment buildings going up because of the state is
00:40:21
going to force as much housing and apartments and, you know,
00:40:26
$2500 one bedroom apartments next to public transit as they
00:40:29
possibly can. Thank you, Scott Weiner for
00:40:32
that. Maybe you'll get struck down in
00:40:33
court because it overrides localities.
00:40:35
Who knows? Maybe we can pray for that.
00:40:37
But. For real is this.
00:40:38
Are these considered government housing?
00:40:40
Like I'm confused about that part.
00:40:43
They wouldn't be privately owned apartments, right?
00:40:46
No, the so the developers are basically like it overrides a
00:40:51
lot of the local control and like gets around a lot of the
00:40:55
environmental impacts and sequel and all that stuff so that
00:41:00
developers can go in and build. So basically, if a developer
00:41:04
comes in and says, I want to build a 10 story apartment
00:41:07
building at this public transit, even though it's surrounded by
00:41:11
cute little Craftsman houses, the basically the state's going
00:41:15
to rubber stamp me and go great, thank you very much.
00:41:17
And the locality is going to go wait, that's going to be an
00:41:19
eyesore and that's horrible for the neighborhood.
00:41:21
And they go too bad. You know, it's not government
00:41:24
housing, they're not building it, but basically they're rubber
00:41:28
stamping every project, the state's rubber stamping every
00:41:31
project. The localities have no control
00:41:33
over any of these developers. This is.
00:41:35
Not going to be affordable then. Like which county will be OK we
00:41:45
can move on. All right, last story of the
00:41:49
day. Newsome signed a bill that, in
00:41:54
my guess, is absolutely going to end up killing Uber and Lyft,
00:41:59
and I'm going to get into it. Why my libertarian principles
00:42:03
and free market principles are going to they're going to be on
00:42:07
display, so I apologize if anyone's not interested in that
00:42:09
stuff. Here's an article from the Times
00:42:12
of San Diego. Lyft Uber drivers will be able
00:42:14
to unionize under new law signed by Newsom More than 800
00:42:17
drivers for ride hailing companies in California will be
00:42:19
able to join a union under a measure signed Friday by
00:42:23
Governor Gavin Newsom. California is the second state
00:42:26
where Uber and Lyft drivers can unionize as independent
00:42:29
contractors. Massachusetts voted voters
00:42:32
passed about referendum in November allowing unionization,
00:42:34
while drivers in Illinois, Minnesota are pushing for
00:42:37
similar rights. The law is part of an agreement
00:42:40
made in September between Newsome state lawmakers and the
00:42:43
Service Employees International Union, SEIU.
00:42:46
If you don't know who SEIU is, they are very powerful.
00:42:50
They have a ton of money and they back a ton of California
00:42:54
Democrats. If you look up any California
00:42:56
Democrat on followthemoney.org, which is a great site, you
00:42:58
should go check it out. Most of the time they're
00:43:01
definitely backed by SEIU along with the rideshare companies
00:43:05
Uber and Lyft. In exchange, Newsom also signed
00:43:07
a measure, SB371, supported by Uber and Lyft, to significantly
00:43:10
cut the company's insurance requirements for accidents
00:43:13
caused by uninsured drivers. Uber and Lyft fares in
00:43:17
California are consistently higher than in other parts of
00:43:19
the US because of the insurance requirements, the companies say.
00:43:22
Uber has said that nearly one third of every ride fare in the
00:43:25
state goes towards paying first state mandated insurance.
00:43:28
Labor unions and tech companies have fought for years over
00:43:31
drivers rates, including the ability to bargain collectively.
00:43:34
I will now venture that if you're going to be a union, that
00:43:37
1/3 for insurance is probably not going to go to pay and
00:43:41
benefits. So I don't think you're going to
00:43:43
save as much money as you think. The insurance measure will
00:43:47
reduce the coverage requirement for accidents caused by
00:43:50
uninsured or under insured drivers from 1 to only
00:43:53
$60 per individual and $300 per accident.
00:43:57
So if an Uber driver or Lyft driver gets an accident, sorry,
00:44:01
it's only $60 per individual.
00:44:03
So it's it's down from 1.
00:44:07
So that's what's happening, I guess.
00:44:09
It sounds like they made a deal. Uber and Lyft wasn't gonna fight
00:44:13
this. As long as you let us cut back
00:44:16
on the insurance because this unionization's coming down the
00:44:19
Pike, then we'll be fine with you guys unionizing knowing that
00:44:25
we're going to have to pay more in pay and benefits as long as
00:44:30
you don't make us pay as much in insurance.
00:44:32
So at the end of the day, their profits are going to stay
00:44:35
basically the same. And it says in this article that
00:44:38
California pays the highest in Uber and Lyft.
00:44:41
Great. What else do we not pay for the
00:44:44
most here in California? So I doubt we'll see any sort of
00:44:49
savings in Uber or Lyft when it comes to this.
00:44:53
I think you'll still see your rates the same.
00:44:56
And with them being unionized, it also means that down the line
00:44:59
they're going to demand more and more stuff, bigger and more
00:45:03
benefits. Even though they're independent
00:45:04
contractors, they don't. They're not employees of union
00:45:07
or Lyft. Remember, they're all
00:45:08
independent contractors. They're exempt under AB5, but
00:45:13
somehow Uber and Lyft are still going to have to end up paying
00:45:16
them a ton of pay and benefits. Any questions about that or any
00:45:22
thoughts before we move on to my my wonky philosophy?
00:45:29
Please share your wonky philosophy.
00:45:31
OK, well this is an article from the Heritage Foundation.
00:45:36
Basically says what unions do, how labour unions affect jobs
00:45:40
and the economy. And This is why when I titled
00:45:44
today's episode about how California is effectively going
00:45:47
to end up killing Uber and Lyft, maybe they won't.
00:45:49
They may end up killing it here in California.
00:45:52
Wouldn't be the first thing that California killed by way of, you
00:45:57
know, legislation or allowing people to unionize.
00:46:01
Basically this goes in to say about what unions do and why do
00:46:04
they affect prices? Because unions function as labor
00:46:06
cartels. A labor cartel restricts the
00:46:09
number of workers in a company or industry to drive up the
00:46:11
remaining workers wages, right? So now they're going to make it,
00:46:16
as I'm sure here in California, if you can unionize and you can
00:46:21
be an Uber Lyft driver, they're going to require you or force
00:46:24
you to join this union. Just as the Organization of
00:46:28
Petroleum, OPEC, attempts to cut the supply of oil to raise its
00:46:32
price, companies pass on those higher wages to consumers
00:46:35
through higher prices, and often they also earn lower profits.
00:46:39
Economic Research finds that unions benefit their members but
00:46:42
hurt consumers generally and especially workers who are
00:46:45
denied job opportunities. These days, unions win higher
00:46:49
wages for employees only at companies with competitive
00:46:52
advantages that allow them to pay higher wages, such as Uber
00:46:55
and Lyft, who are basically the entire market share of rideshare
00:47:00
companies such as successful research and development
00:47:03
projects or capital investments. Unions effectively tax these
00:47:06
investments by negotiating higher wages for their members,
00:47:10
thus lowering profits. Unionized companies respond to
00:47:12
this union tax by reducing investment.
00:47:14
Less investments makes unionized companies less competitive.
00:47:17
This, along with the fact that unions function as labour
00:47:20
cartels that seek to reduce job opportunities, it causes
00:47:23
unionized companies to lose jobs.
00:47:25
Economists consistently find that unions decrease the number
00:47:27
of jobs available in the economy.
00:47:31
So all of that is to say, when you have a union, they constrict
00:47:38
labor supply because they force you into these unions.
00:47:41
They force prices up because now they're negotiating for higher
00:47:44
pay and benefits. Companies then have to force
00:47:48
that onto the consumer and take away from research and
00:47:51
development and continuing to grow.
00:47:53
So unions basically create this stagnation in the growth of the
00:47:58
company and the ability of the company to thrive.
00:48:00
And I'm sure there's going to be people out there who are like,
00:48:02
no, unions actually help. Talk to people who deal with
00:48:05
unions on a daily basis in any private sector, you know,
00:48:08
employer, and they'll say unions usually hold things up.
00:48:12
So now you have union, union, union and Lyft, Uber and Lyft,
00:48:16
who are going to see probably see prices rise.
00:48:18
We're probably going to end up paying more.
00:48:21
And why is this going to kill Uber and Lyft?
00:48:25
In my opinion? Because thankfully for the
00:48:29
moment, we still live in a free market and the free market
00:48:33
continues to innovate and figure out ways to make things more
00:48:37
competitive, more efficient. The free market basically
00:48:42
remains undefeated because they there's someone always smarter
00:48:44
and there's someone more, I guess, entrepreneurial or has
00:48:51
more ingenuity to outsmart you and outflank you.
00:48:55
And we're already seeing that if you go to LA.
00:48:58
And I was shocked when I was in LA a couple weeks ago to see a
00:49:02
concert, I was seeing so many Waymos all over Los Angeles.
00:49:10
If you don't know what Waymo is, maybe I can pull up a video or
00:49:13
clip of it. But it is the self driving car.
00:49:17
It's a self driving rideshare car.
00:49:19
You call a Waymo, it drives, it shows up, it picks you up.
00:49:24
There is nobody in there. It takes you to your location,
00:49:27
drops you off. Don't have to.
00:49:28
It's all credit card and all that.
00:49:29
It's all done through the app. Complete driverless car.
00:49:34
Waymo has taken the whole thing out.
00:49:36
You're not going to get Waymo to have to deal with unions because
00:49:39
there's no one there. There's no one driving these
00:49:41
cars. There's another company called
00:49:43
Zoox which is being rolled out in Las Vegas.
00:49:48
They're doing a trial run right now.
00:49:49
You can look them up. They're basically a box on
00:49:53
wheels for four people. Rolls up, same thing.
00:49:57
You tell it where it wants to go, it'll self drive you up and
00:49:59
down the strip to whatever casino or hotel you want to go
00:50:02
to. There is no driver and it's a
00:50:05
tiny little box and you know, it looks pretty cost efficient.
00:50:10
And this is where we're going. Tesla is rolling out self
00:50:13
driving taxis in Austin. Like self driving taxis are
00:50:17
already here or self driving rideshare and it's only growing
00:50:23
exponentially. And now with Uber and Lyft
00:50:26
having to be in a union driving these prices up, consumers are
00:50:32
going to go somewhere else. If I can buy or if I can get a,
00:50:36
a ride with Waymo for half the price of an Uber, I will
00:50:40
absolutely hop in that Waymo over and Uber.
00:50:42
There's no way. I, I mean, I'm sorry, I've
00:50:45
ridden in self driven cars. My car drives itself.
00:50:50
I, I think it's the way of the future.
00:50:52
It's going to be self driving. So that's my rant is that this
00:50:57
union is going to push Uber and Lyft into the Stone Age when
00:51:02
they're self driving taxis. So long and you know, thank you
00:51:07
for coming, my Ted talk. Basically, Uber and Lyft are
00:51:09
going to be dead in about 10 years because they'll be self
00:51:11
driving taxis and no one's going to ride an Uber and Lyft.
00:51:13
So let me know, tell me your thoughts while I'm sitting here
00:51:18
taking a sip of tea to catch up from that.
00:51:22
Yeah, also in the chat. Let me know your thoughts as
00:51:25
well. I was in San Francisco a year
00:51:30
ago and the Waymos were everywhere.
00:51:32
At first, I didn't know what they were like.
00:51:33
I hadn't actually heard of them. And I, I was with my mom and my
00:51:37
girls and we kept seeing them and we're like, what are those?
00:51:39
What are those? And all of a sudden my mom like,
00:51:41
grabs my arm and she's like, come here.
00:51:44
There's no driver in there. And so I, you know, pull up my
00:51:48
phone and looked it up and I'm like, OK, this is what it is.
00:51:50
So Waymo is owned by Alphabet, right?
00:51:56
Google. It's owned by Amazon.
00:52:00
I don't know, I think so, but keep keep going.
00:52:06
I'll double check that people in the chat want to know.
00:52:08
OK, If, if that's the case, they definitely have the the money
00:52:13
to, you know, roll these out. Like you said, they're in LA,
00:52:17
they're in San Francisco. I don't know if I haven't seen
00:52:20
them around Orange County. That doesn't mean they're not
00:52:24
here. I'm sure that they'll be rolling
00:52:27
them out in the the major counties soon enough.
00:52:31
But I kind of laugh at this because they're trying to push
00:52:35
this whole public transit thing and that, you know, and the
00:52:37
house thing right next to the public transit, which is we
00:52:40
didn't even get into that with that issue with, you know, Bart.
00:52:43
Scott Weiner's always advocating for more money for Bart because
00:52:46
not enough people are using it, which should tell you a lot
00:52:50
about that. But now I it's like they, they
00:52:55
seem to want to kill Uber Lyft because again, they if they're
00:53:00
not, they're not really going to save money by joining the unions
00:53:03
and then tip less. This Uber ride is so expensive.
00:53:16
I'm going to, you know, tip a little less percentage than I
00:53:23
anyway, it it is funny that like I I feel like they're turning
00:53:30
ours probably will take over as they already are becoming a big
00:53:34
thing. And like you've told me you you
00:53:36
drove yours or it drove you from San Diego to Orange County and
00:53:41
your wife went to an event and you know that whatever hour and
00:53:44
a half drive you said it was like, no worries, it was great.
00:53:49
And they're only going to keep reflecting this technology at I
00:53:54
don't know, it's like, I don't know where I'm going with this.
00:53:56
Public transit doesn't get the support it needs.
00:53:59
They're trying to force it now. They want to unionize this group
00:54:03
of independent people. I are they hurting for their are
00:54:08
unions to Democrats? Like what?
00:54:12
What are they? They need more money here.
00:54:14
I don't know what's going on because we know that's what
00:54:15
happens with union dues. You know they take union dues
00:54:18
and a big percentage or a percentage goes 2.
00:54:26
Democrats, I wanted to show this.
00:54:27
This was what I was thinking. There's another article.
00:54:30
I'm not going to read the whole article, but I did want to share
00:54:32
this. So this was from San Francisco
00:54:37
market share of rideshares in 2023, August of 2023.
00:54:44
Waymo is down here. And to answer your question,
00:54:46
yes, Waymo is a subsidiary of Google and Zoox is a subsidiary
00:54:50
of Amazon. So they both have a ton of money
00:54:53
to dump into these drivers and like really be a competitor to
00:54:57
Uber and Lyft. So this is where it started.
00:55:01
This is Waymo. Uber's all the way up here.
00:55:04
But look at the line and how far it's come in just a year.
00:55:08
This is a year old at this point.
00:55:10
So Waymo already caught up to Lyft in a year.
00:55:16
So to give it, yeah, 0% it caught up to 20% caught up to
00:55:21
Lyft. So that's how fast the self
00:55:24
driving are happening. And I there's people in the chat
00:55:27
who are like, well, I, I wouldn't trust this out.
00:55:29
That's fine. I'm not saying you have to get
00:55:31
forced to drive in a self driving car.
00:55:33
You can still choose Uber, Lyft. That's the great thing I love
00:55:36
about like a free market is that you don't want to take a self
00:55:40
driving car. You don't have to.
00:55:42
You can use an Uber, you can use a Lyft.
00:55:44
I love competition. Maybe they get better.
00:55:46
Maybe Uber and Lyft figure it out.
00:55:49
But the point I'm trying to make is that when these companies get
00:55:52
to a certain point, they get so big and they, they become like
00:55:57
when everyone remember when Uber first came out and like how
00:56:01
cheap Ubers were, like everybody took Ubers because they were
00:56:04
super cheap. They're like, oh, I can get from
00:56:07
here to so and so. And it's like less than 20
00:56:09
bucks. And it's like awesome.
00:56:10
And everyone jumped on and Uber and Lyft, they got big, they
00:56:14
went public, they had shareholders.
00:56:15
Now they have people to answer to the rates doubled.
00:56:18
Now it's unions. Now they're going to have to do
00:56:19
pay and benefits and stuff like that.
00:56:21
And their rates are going to go up.
00:56:22
If you want to choose that, you can choose that.
00:56:24
If you want to spend more money on them, go ahead.
00:56:26
My point is that at a certain point, these companies get to a
00:56:30
point and then they get unionized.
00:56:32
And then people like Gavin Newsom come in and the Democrats
00:56:34
who say, oh, we want them to be unionized because all these good
00:56:38
fields and stuff like that, we believe they need pay and
00:56:40
benefits. But in a free market, there's
00:56:44
going to be someone who's going to go, great, I don't need to
00:56:46
worry about drivers. I don't need to worry about
00:56:48
unionizing. I don't need to worry about
00:56:49
paying benefits. And the free market will kind of
00:56:52
correct itself and consumers will figure out, OK, I'll take
00:56:56
the self driverless car for half the price.
00:56:58
And again, I'm not saying anybody tuning in or in the
00:57:01
chat, if you don't want to take a self driver or, or I keep
00:57:03
calling it self driverless car, that's kind of oxymoron.
00:57:06
Self driving driverless car, go ahead and and do whatever you
00:57:11
want. That's my whole philosophy.
00:57:13
Do whatever you want. You want to take a horse and
00:57:15
buggy, take a horse and buggy. You want to take an Uber, Lyft,
00:57:17
go ahead. You want to take traditional
00:57:18
taxi, you know, look in the phone book.
00:57:22
If you still get those and, and find your traditional taxi, go
00:57:24
right ahead. But that's the point of the free
00:57:27
market is that it will, there will be someone who's going to
00:57:30
compete and see this as an opening.
00:57:31
It looks like Waymo already sees this as an opening.
00:57:35
And I think they're going to continue to get more and more
00:57:37
rider share or market share of these riders as prices for Uber
00:57:43
and Lyft go up. And while they, they, people
00:57:47
like Gavin Newsom in Sacramento think they're doing a great job
00:57:50
by helping people, they've killed their industry that will
00:57:53
eventually go out of business. It's kind of like we just saw an
00:57:58
example of this when they raised the minimum wage for fast food
00:58:01
workers. What happened?
00:58:04
The free market decided, guess what, we can't pay that.
00:58:07
No one wants to pay on the past costs or the, the, the past on
00:58:10
cost of more money. Guess what, we're going to start
00:58:15
cutting jobs now. There's a 10s of thousands of
00:58:18
fast food worker jobs have been eliminated in California because
00:58:21
of it. And that's what's happening.
00:58:24
That's the free market. So they think they're doing
00:58:26
these virtuous things and then it ends up biting them in the
00:58:30
butt and it hurts the industry that they're trying to help.
00:58:34
I hope that all made sense. But I feel like that was, I feel
00:58:37
like maybe we come back in five years and then we can look at
00:58:42
this and go, once Uber and Lyft is dead, we'll be like, we
00:58:44
called it. We can come back to this
00:58:46
episode, episode 337 and go, this is the day that Uber and
00:58:51
Lyft died. So I don't know.
00:58:55
Do you have any other thoughts? Let me check the chat to see
00:58:56
what people are thinking right now.
00:58:59
I think the chat. I.
00:59:01
I gave you a headache by talking so much I.
00:59:05
No, no, I just feel like I don't have any very intelligent,
00:59:09
articulate thoughts to share on this subject.
00:59:12
Like it's something I need to know a little bit more about.
00:59:14
That's why I was just kind of rambling different thoughts that
00:59:20
I mean, I'm just I'm anti union anyway, but I don't I don't I
00:59:28
don't understand why they want to unionize their independent
00:59:30
contractors. Why?
00:59:35
Yeah, isn't the point you want to be an independent contractor
00:59:37
for the independence? Doesn't really make any sense.
00:59:41
777 overjoyed says unions help if if you are the union boss,
00:59:47
then the more people you can get in the union, the more money you
00:59:49
can make and the more money you can donate to Democrats.
00:59:52
Nailed it. Yeah, awesome.
00:59:54
And. Loretta Gonzalez could, you
00:59:57
know, make sure that lawsuits about her husband go away, not
01:00:01
saying she paid it off. So when he.
01:00:03
Said it returns back to private citizens will be denied
01:00:06
self-sufficiency. There is a concern with that.
01:00:09
Like a lot of these guys. As much as I love the tech in my
01:00:12
Tesla, it does bother me. I can check on my Tesla
01:00:16
literally anywhere in the world from my phone, which means that
01:00:20
if I can check on it, that means Tesla can certainly check on it.
01:00:23
And like you can see wherever your Tesla is, wherever in the
01:00:27
world. That does concern me a little
01:00:29
bit. Still love my Tesla.
01:00:31
I think it's an amazing car. Back to the world.
01:00:35
Economic for a great reset. Wants to get rid of the private
01:00:38
car ownership, private car ownership, private property
01:00:42
ownership. I mean, it starts, you know,
01:00:44
it's not a conspiracy theory when you start to see the
01:00:46
pattern. What was that commercial that
01:00:49
they put out which was you'll own, you'll own nothing and
01:00:52
you'll like it or something. I want to drive my own gas car
01:00:56
for $4.00 a gallon at the most. Now try now.
01:01:00
Time to start a new travel company.
01:01:04
Yeah, unless you contributed to Gavin Newsom, like Panera Bread
01:01:09
that was exempt to the minimum wage bill.
01:01:12
Yep, Yeah, unless you're unless you're well connected to Gavin
01:01:16
Newsom, then you don't have to worry about these bills and you
01:01:18
don't have to pay the consequences.
01:01:21
Someone said see you in one year.
01:01:23
Is that over election of like in a year Uber and Lyft will be
01:01:26
that's pretty black belt. I think Uber and Lyft will
01:01:28
probably be dead in a year after this unionization.
01:01:33
So, all right, any final thoughts as we wrap up for
01:01:36
tonight? Thanks, everyone.
01:01:37
Thanks everyone for. Oh, someone said Uber and Lyft
01:01:42
will be the next Starbucks that closed 400 store locations after
01:01:45
unionizing. Certainly.
01:01:48
Yeah, It's it's going to hurt. It's going to hurt.
01:01:50
I hope Uber and Lyft and the shareholders understand that.
01:01:54
Thank you everyone for tuning in tonight.
01:01:56
We're back on Tuesdays, 8:00 PM. We do this show live on 8:00 PM
01:02:01
every week because we love having you guys being able to
01:02:03
chat. If you listen on audio, Spotify,
01:02:06
Google, Apple, all of those places.
01:02:09
Make sure you like share, comment, review.
01:02:11
That stuff definitely helps. Telegram.
01:02:14
Someone asked about the Telegram.
01:02:15
Yes, we're working on the Telegram.
01:02:17
We will announce when the Telegram goes live.
01:02:20
Camille bugs me about it every single day that we need to start
01:02:23
the Telegram. She told me today, she said,
01:02:26
listen, dummy, you need to start your telegram.
01:02:29
I think that's what she said. But anyway, it was close.
01:02:34
I'm paraphrasing. She did call me dummy like you
01:02:36
need to start. This I did not call you dummy.
01:02:40
Listen dummy, start that Telegram channel.
01:02:42
I said what I say. I was basically like start the
01:02:47
channel if you build it dot dot dot US.
01:02:51
Yeah, we're going to get to it. Don't worry.
01:02:52
The telegrams come in, a lot of things going on in October, so
01:02:56
we'll get there. We got a lot of stuff planned
01:02:58
for November. So thank you again, everyone for
01:03:00
tuning in live. Tuesday, 8:00 PM.
01:03:02
Make sure you check out the videos, hit the notification
01:03:04
bell here on YouTube, all that stuff.
01:03:07
You want to make sure you support the show.
01:03:09
We are, oh, this is a Good Housekeeping note.
01:03:13
Merchandise. We are switching providers for
01:03:17
merchandise. We've heard some people say
01:03:19
there's been an issue. The company we were working
01:03:22
with, they're going through a transition and they've done an
01:03:25
absolute horrible job of transitioning who they work
01:03:27
with. So we are just going ahead and
01:03:30
switching to a whole new company that is way more reliable.
01:03:34
So that should be rolled out pretty soon and you'll be able
01:03:37
to get more merchandise. Maybe we'll run a giveaway or
01:03:40
something like that for people. But the best thing you can do to
01:03:44
support this show that is 100% free is you can share it with
01:03:48
someone who you think needs to hear this and is interested in
01:03:51
California politics. And with that, we'll see it on
01:03:53
the next one later.